John Frawley's "Real Astrology"

I'm nearing the end of this book, which I read on Minderwiz's excellent recommendation.

It's an enjoyable book to read. Frawley does, as Minderwiz says, raise many good points and makes the reader think. It's also a good read because of the sheer joy Frawley takes in skewering modern-day psychological astrology. He has quite the talent for the sarcastic putdown, and several times the book made me laugh out loud.

I think many of his points about psychological astrology are well-taken. However, I don't agree with his position that the cure for all ills is to practice astrology exactly as it was practiced 500 years ago. Frawley makes it sound as though the way astrology was practiced then was perfect, and the way it's practiced now is absolute garbage and both modern practitioners and modern clients are complete boobs. I can accept that there's a lot to complain about in how astrology is practiced currently, but I think it's quite unrealistic to present the astrology of the 15th century as some sort of romanticized, idealized golden age.

I think the important thing to understand about Frawley is that not only does he subscribe whole-heartedly and unreservedly to the impressively intricate and logical system of traditional astrology, but he also swallows uncritically the entire edifice of Catholic doctrine and morality which was embraced by the practitioners of that time. At times in the book he seems to suggest that those modern thinkers who disagreed with the Church and paid for it with their lives deserved what they got. These passages made my blood run cold.

Frawley is certainly historically correct that the astrology of that time presupposed a firm belief in the 15th century versions of one of the "revealed faiths," i.e. Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Frawley obviously feels that to the extent that modern life allows for the possibility of different beliefs, we are that much the poorer. I suppose this means Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, atheists, agnostics, etc. aren't allowed to practice astrology. I would venture to guess that many members of this forum, if suddenly transported to the times and places Frawley looks back on so fondly, would find themselves burned at the stake. So it's hard for me to look on fundamentalist Catholicism with the same rosy glow that Frawley does.

Many modern practitioners take exception to the fatalistic and gloomy interpretations that classical astrologers were fond of. Frawley stacks the deck a bit by using Hitler's chart as an example of the supposed accuracy of traditional techniques. In Hitler's case, obviously predictions of depravity, bloodthirstiness, etc. would have been quite appropriate. But Hitler is, fortunately, an extreme. What if the sweet little old lady who lives next door to me, who would never hurt a flea, has the same indications?

I would agree that the changes which resulted in modern astrology have not always been for the better, but I think in the main, these changes were necessary. The medieval conception of what it meant to be human was fundamentally different than what it is now. In those days, you were born into your social position and really had not much choice but to accept your lot in life with as much dignity as possible. Presently in western society we are much more free to determine our own destinies, and therefore a fatalistic astrology is no longer appropriate.

I must note that, amusing as Frawley's zingers are against modern astrology, he employs a technique which is not quite fair. He creates his own version of modern astrology which leaves out all the good things and emphasizes the bad, and then goes on to criticize that astrology, which doesn't really exist except in his own mind. He presents modern astrology as a way for a client to avoid personal responsibility in their life by using astrological factors as an excuse. But all the beginning astrology books I've seen specifically warn against this and in fact do so quite vociferously. I think the danger in using astrology as an excuse is much greater when dealing with gloomy and fatalistic traditional interpretations than with modern interpretations.

I was a bit disappointed in the lack of any effort on Frawley's part to substantiate, even anecdotally, his claims that traditional predictive techniques actually work when applied to outer events and circumstances. Also, he keeps saying that these techniques are "verifiably accurate," but he also insists that they are incapable of being scientifically tested. I'm afraid the distinction between "verifiably accurate" and "scientifically testable" escapes me.

Frawley states that these techniques are completely objective; that is, there is no intuition required, one only has to follow the rules correctly. However, this doesn't square with Frawley's own history, which I read about in the excellent book "Astrology in the Year Zero" by Garry Phillipson. Apparently Frawley made a big splash when he predicted several sports games correctly on television appearances. In "Year Zero," Frawley recounts how this initial success resulted in many lucrative consultation requests, but Frawley was unable to produce the goods and the whole thing was something of a disaster. Frawley implies in the "Year Zero" interview that his failures were due to the money and fame that were riding on successful predictions. But surely this would not be the case if the traditional techniques were truly objective? He should have been able to simply follow the rules and arrive at correct answers even with the pressures attendant on fame and fortune.

In any event, I'm glad I read this book because it did help me clarify for myself how I feel on many of these matters.

-- Lee

Lee, you have beautifully articulated my own feelings about Frawley and his book. I began reading it with great enjoyment and fascination, but by the time I'd finished it, my sense was that the book is a rather overblown reaction to Frawley's personal insecurities and the viscissitudes of his upbringing. This modulates my initial enthusiasm for the good points that he does make. The works of Robert Hand, Lee Lehman and Joseph Crane highlight the positive contributions of classical astrology, without diminishing the value of modern insights and discoveries.

As I said in the recommendation, I don't agree with everything in the book, however I do think it is one that all those intrested in Astrology should read.

I agree wholeheartedly with your points about 'revealed religion' - As it was the Babylonians and the Greeks (and possibly Egyptians) who did more to create Astrology than any others, it is a rather weak claim by Frawley. Unlike Frawley, I believe Lilly called his book 'Christian Astrology' to keep the church off his back - there is relatively little if any 'Christianity in it and I think Frawley mentions God a lot more than Liily does.

I'm also sure that if Lilly came back today he'd incorporate the outer planets into his readings - he used the full range of techniques available in his day.

I'm not sure that Frawley does subscribe wholeheartedly to the old doctrines. I also note that oddly the glyphs for Uranus, Neptune and Pluto appear in his charts - and I'm sure this is not because he doesn't know how to disable them on his computer.

He also charges £1500 ($2250) for his course and you never get to meet him, you simply exchanage emails.

I've also read his Real Astrology Applied, which I found rather disappointing but does contain some examples. Overall I feel Frawley overeggs the pudding and some comments are put in for effect.

However, all that being said - It makes Astrology students like me ask questions and review their working practices. I don't believe for a moment that after Lilly popped his clogs Astrology came to a full stop but neither did it start with Alan Leo or Dane Rudhyar. And I've always felt that the Astrological Alphabet approach was just plain wrong.

Any book that provokes as much thought is always well worth the read.

Forgot to add

1 - that was an excellent review Lee, Well considered and extremely perceptive. I should have congratulated you on it first.


2 - When I rang up my normal supplier, Wessex Astrologer, to order Lee Lehman's book on Essential Dignities and Frawley's Real Astrology, Margaret, who runs the book order service was able to supply the first but not Frawley's - they don't stock it anymore. I was rather taken aback and asked where I could get it - through the internet was the response. Anyway having ordered the Lehman book, I went to Amazon, found Frawley's and ordered that.

A moment or two later Margaret rang back offering Frawley's telephone number so I could place an order. I thanked her for her kindness but explained that I had already ordered it through Amazon. I then asked her why Wessex Astrologer no longer stocked it. She replied that he thought he could get more money from it selling it through other channels. Looking at your comments on his predictive work, I wonder if the lure of the $$$$ is too much for him. A real pity because, like Astraea, I got rather annoyed about his style getting in the way of some of the good points he made and also perhaps leading to a down grading of his views.

Thanks, Astraea and Minderwiz! Astraea, I agree, I've seen some comments on the 'net by Robert Hand and Adrian Brody which did a lot to offset the negative feeling I had after reading Frawley. I do think (as a baby beginner) that traditional techniques could be a valuable tool in a modern practice, and I certainly intend to investigate them. I particularly want to investigate Lee Lehman's books, but I'll wait until I'm a little more advanced in my learning, otherwise I won't know what she's talking about. Unfortunately some of her books are out of print, I hope I'll be able to find them when I'm ready for them. I have Kevin Burk's "Understanding the Birth Chart," a beginner's book which, as I understand, uses some traditional approaches, and I'll be reading that soon.

Minderwiz, that's a good point about the supposedly strictly Christian-Jewish-Islamic astrology having, of course, pagan roots.

I guess we can't criticize Frawley for wanting to make a profit, but it does seem like if he's going to go through the trouble of publishing a book, he should make it available through bookstores. If he can't make enough money that way, then perhaps he should rethink his decision to self-publish, rather than place it with, and then pull it from, bookstores.

I'm probably not the best person to judge the efficacy of the Astrological Alphabet, since I'm studying that section of my correspondece course as we speak! I did have to laugh, though, at Frawley's description of it as "a strange and deformed creature of darkness."

-- Lee

You will like Lee Lehman's books - if you have problems try Wessex Astrologer as they ship internationally.

http://www.wessexastrologer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=WA

I had read Lilly, Saunders, and Culpeper before I read Frawley and I read Lee Lehman's Essential Dignities the book before. I was therefore fairly familiar with many of the ideas. Incidentally, I believe Kevin Burk (I also have his book and he shares the same birthday as me) was one of Lee Lehman's pupils.

If you get into Horary Astrology you might also like to read Tony Louis' 'Horary Astrology Plain & Simple'. Louis is a practising Psychaitrist, as well as having written on Tarot.

Again, I think Frawley likes to stir things up and many of his points are tongue in cheek. However it does stir you out of complaceny.

Lee, here's a link to the page on Lee Lehman's site where one can order her books: http://www.leelehman.com/pages/books.html. It appears that she has all of them, as of today. And Minderwiz makes an excellent suggestion about Wessex -- I've ordered from them, and they are very helpful and carry a wonderful line of books.

There's an interview w/Frawley in the Sept/Oct issue of Mountain Astrologer

I actually found the article rather disappointing - it didn't really shed much light on his ideas or even present a challenge to him.

Real Astrology is worth the read - simply to make people think about the what and why and indeed to challenge some of the taken for granted assumptions of modern Astrology. The second book and the article are rather disappointing.

I understand that he is working on a book on horary Astrology - I will need to see a copy before finally committing myself to that read.

Just finished this book. Dazzling!

Up front, I should say I'm an astronewbie, and I've been gradually sinking into the waters of traditional astrology more for research than practice, BUT what a wit and what a book! Always such a jjoy to find someone with knowledge and opinionss to impart and the ability to articulate them, especially considering the dross that passes for "esoteric" nonfiction writing these days.

The book is precisely what it claims to be, a discussion of "Real" (as in nonlobotomized) Astrology and a scathing dissection of its modern mutation by way of Alan Leo and the Theosophists. More than once, the way in which he explained a concept and his careful progression from simple to complex patterns proved illuminating. As a relative noob, I finally GOT the logic of exaltations and dignities. At last, an astrological book that doesn't try to gloss over the philosophical underpinnings and the worldviews that crosspollinated to create its rules. I closed the book feeling like I could proudly discuss astrology as a traditional esoteric science without that twinge of embarassed boredom I've felt all my life around the pop topic of Sun signs.

I do understand people's reservations with some of his brassier statements, but I disagree on principle, because I think the real value of this book is the discussion of the underpinnnings of traditional astrology, and the complete lack thereof in modern practice. I agree with Lee's (4 year-old... has it changed?) criticism about the strange asertion that we freeze astrology at a point 500 years ago, but I read it differently. Frawley wrote this as a vehement rejection of New Age, Theosophy-based astrology and at every trun uses caustic wit to flay the hides of psychobabblers. I don't believe we are fundamentally different as humans than our ancestors, but I do believe the world we have made for ourselves is. If astroilogy needed to evolve to accomodate that changed world, the sunsign version should have been a botched footnote.

What I especialy found interesting was his ferocious, repeated appeal to a belief in essence, quality as opposed to quantity, as the matrix of existence. And in fact a lot of his ridicule of mushy platitudinizing in divination echoes almost word for word things I've said about the strongest trend in modern divination of all stripes. Tons of fodder for thought.

I didn't buy it 100%. I disagreed with him obviously at points. The relentless Christianity depresses me. He does waffle in his use of the word "traditional" and where he veers from clsscial sources, he doesn't always give a heads up. The gloss of middle-class English morals that poke through in examples and censures. But these quibbles were crumbs in this banquet of a book.

Most thrilling though, and in a way the most rigorous and practical section, was his dismissal of sidereal vs. tropical arguments (which he then built to a fantastic examination ogf the planets as astrologic forces vs. astronomic objects). In about a paragraph, he articulated something around which I have been fumbling in my own writing and speaking for 15 years: the idiotic literalism which renders a territory of every map and a substance of every Empedoclean element.

Mainly, I enjoyed the living hell out of this. Smart, sassy and thought-encouraging. Even with quibbles I feel like it's a must read for anyone who's noticing that the New Age piffle can be stretched to cover anything like an old pair of outworn pantyhose. Frawley's got me all keyed up to go find out for myself how far the rabbit hole goes...

Next stop: Lehman and Barclay.

Scion